The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 7:12 am You clearly have beliefs and now want to craft evidence to support those beliefs, as you claim a survey that found no pits is the same as a survey that found 11.

"Krege’s team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples... his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes."

roberto wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 7:13 am It is perfectly reasonable to question a claim and ask it to be evidenced.

It is also perfectly reasonable to ask what the evidentiary value of the so-called "evidence" that is proffered is.

The same goes for the standard of proof.

But that is why roberto has to hide behind his "nessie" alias - so he can dodge all such requests.

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=23545#p23545

f you would entertain a question from me, if the people describing the event that occurred all witnessed the event, how do you explain all of the holes in the narrative?

The answer to that question lies in all the studies on and tests of witnesses, memory and recall.

"AI Overview
Inconsistency in witness testimony is a strong indicator of unreliable evidence or a potential lie, but it is not absolute proof of dishonesty. While inconsistent statements are a major factor in assessing credibility, they often arise from honest mistakes, memory failure, or the stress of giving evidence, particularly in traumatic scenarios or when a witness is subjected to intense cross-examination...
The Role of Context: Inconsistencies regarding core elements of an event (e.g., who was involved) are more likely to indicate fabrication than discrepancies in peripheral details (e.g., what someone was wearing).
Memory Limitations: Human memory is incomplete. Gaps in recollection are normal, and a highly detailed account of a stressful event is sometimes more suspicious than one with gaps."

I mean, people who say they worked with the murder weapon for a year have wildly divergent descriptions of how it was constructed and how it operated.

They are clearly describing the same thing, the divergence is in the details.

It is analogous to someone telling you they operated a piece of equipment for a year, but not being able to turn it on or operate it. Then half a dozen other people telling you they ran it for a year and also not being able to operate it. Then having the group disagree about how the machine operates as well...

It is nothing like that. One witness saw it being made, but not in operation. Those who saw it in operation were more consistent, but they were working under very stressful circumstances. Your biased opinion is not based on any real comparison (my bold);

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 5#abstract

"Among both laypeople and law-enforcement personnel, the modal belief is that a lack of consistency across repeated statements signals that a testimony is fabricated. However, inconsistencies also occur in reports of events that have actually been experienced...
The assumption that mnemonic consistency indicates truthfulness is theoretically embedded in the cognitive-load hypothesis (Walczyk et al., Citation2009, Citation2012). According to this hypothesis, lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. Liars may therefore lose track of what they have and have not reported. However, the cognitive-load hypothesis is incompatible with the results of several studies showing either no difference in consistency between liars and truth-tellers (Granhag & Strömwall, Citation2002; Hudson et al., Citation2019; Mac Giolla & Granhag, Citation2015) or the exact opposite pattern of what is predicted by the cognitive-load hypothesis, namely that liars are more consistent in their statements than those who tell the truth (Granhag et al., Citation2003, Citation2013, Citation2015; Strömwall & Granhag, Citation2005). In fact, it seems reasonable to assume that inconsistencies occur naturally in experience-based statements. This is so because human memory is subject to forgetting and reconstruction, leaving repeated recall susceptible to omission, change and addition of information over time (Baddeley, Citation2013; Loftus et al., Citation1978; Tulving, Citation2000)."

Nessie,

It is just like that. They describe different constructions, different methods of operation, and different results.

They can't agree if the column distributed he pellets like a seed spreader across the room,or collected them in a contrivance or dumped them if a fucking pile on the floor, you dense mother fucker.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 4:02 pm Nessie,

It is just like that. They describe different constructions, different methods of operation, and different results.

They can't agree if the column distributed he pellets like a seed spreader across the room,or collected them in a contrivance or dumped them if a fucking pile on the floor, you dense mother fucker.

They all describe columns, made of metal, only for Kremas II and III, to introduce and remove the Zyklon B pellets. That is the core narrative, on which they are all consistent. They then vary on details, about how the column was constructed and worked. You have never produced anything to prove that inconstancy is evidence they all lied and there was no such column.

The study I quoted above proves your belief about inconsistency proving lying is wrong;

"According to this hypothesis, lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. Liars may therefore lose track of what they have and have not reported. However, the cognitive-load hypothesis is incompatible with the results of several studies showing either no difference in consistency between liars and truth-tellers (Granhag & Strömwall, Citation2002; Hudson et al., Citation2019; Mac Giolla & Granhag, Citation2015) or the exact opposite pattern of what is predicted by the cognitive-load hypothesis, namely that liars are more consistent in their statements than those who tell the truth (Granhag et al., Citation2003, Citation2013, Citation2015; Strömwall & Granhag, Citation2005)"

That will be why you are getting angry and abusive. It would be more constructive, if you produced evidence that the inconsistency between the witnesses is evidence to prove they all lied. However, I know you cannot do that, which removes one of your primary beliefs, which will cause you stress.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/jour ... the-facts/

"Contradiction and inconsistency. The intended conflict between the adversaries’ stories is best described as contradiction. Often, by itself, either version might be plausible. But inconsistency denotes unintended, internal differences about significant facts in the evidence of one or more witnesses who support the same story. If they must know the real facts the court may conclude that someone is lying, not mistaken. If so, all or part of the inconsistent evidence, and even consistent evidence, from these sources may be rejected. However, minor differences between eyewitnesses often arise from the normal fallibility of observation and memory rather than lying. Also, too much consistency, especially about details, in the evidence of several witnesses who support the same story may sometimes suggest collusion and falsehood."

No, I'm agitated because your head is an empty vessel and you prattle on about how the descriptions are the same when they are anything but.

https://encyclopedia.historiography-pro ... index.html

They can't even agree if the murder instrument was thrown into the floor or collected in a contrivance. That's not just some detail, that's a fundamental issue.